Originally Posted by SATTSO (Post 16618658)

It would be beyond stupid to then allow that person into the sterile area of the checkpoint without knowing what that item is.

Originally Posted by SATTSO (Post 16618538)

But some cargo is screened - the passengers I have had this issue with have not wanted it screened. You answer sets up the possibility of it being screened. So what is another solution?

Originally Posted by SATTSO (Post 16618658)

Yes, most people do accept screening to a certain level.

And you are silly if you think I was making an argument for the SPD/RPD or AIT. I can rolleyes too :rolleyes:

But I think now the point I have made is that the criticism on this thread, that when something has been identified that can not be explained, unless it is resolved, then screening has not been successful, and the passenger or person should not be allowed on the plane.

I gave extreme examples of that - and what I described are real examples, but the argument holds up. And now that we have established that screening of some sort must take place or the person and/or bag will be given a DY...T lets use that and apply it to a pat down.

If while doing a pat down, and I feel a pace maker under a mans shirt, that is easy to explain, I know what it feels like without having to do anything else. However, if I feel a something under a shirt that I can not explain, short of the passenger removing the item to have the area patted down again, the passenger can not be allowed through the checkpoint. Its common sense.

It would be beyond stupid to then allow that person into the sterile area of the checkpoint without knowing what that item is. At that point, you would have to deny entry to that person. Otherwise there would be NO point in doing any screening at all.

Or... @:-) ... you could give the passenger the option of lifting their shirt if they don't want the other options. @:-)

The arguments all of you make are silly, actually a bit naive.

Originally Posted by SATTSO (Post 16616146)

Considering how different people are, how unique situations can be, I do not think that would be possible. Nor when screening is established that allows flexibility can such a process exist. What would be better, I believe, is a list detailing what can NOT happen during the process.

Originally Posted by SATTSO (Post 16618531)

Ok, the question I asked I did not make up. I have had passengers ask it of me (TSA), and they would not have submitted to what you said.

Again, what I have been asked is this: they will not accept their bag to be screened, not by machine, not by hand. Yet they want it on the plane. What do you, as TSA, do?

Originally Posted by RatherBeOnATrain (Post 16619040)

Another false dichotomy...

Roughly 30+ times a year, I end up flying with at least one checked bag in the cargo hold below my seat. Also in the cargo hold is unscreened luggage, from shippers who are *not* on the plane.

What sense does it make to screen my checked luggage when there is unscreened cargo in the same hold?

Your employer has had plenty of time to address this question, as the Pan-Am 103 bombing happened back in 1988.

Originally Posted by Fredd (Post 16618713)

You recently asserted to me that the TSA never does "pat-downs" and yet you're now using the term. :confused:

As others have noted, you're using, whether deliberately or not, the logical fallacy known as the false alternative. :td:

When I have opted out of going through the X-Ray scanner, I have been subjected to a search that exceeds the LEO pat-down frisk, not due to anomalies, but rather as SOP. As we all know, even if I go through that machine, I might still end up being searched in an invasive manner.

I suppose your best argument is that some high percentage of those people subjected to your search, e.g. 20-25%, require the sort of further attention you describe. Is that the case?

Originally Posted by Tom M. (Post 16618723)

Every day, TSO's let items into the sterile area that they don't know what they are.

It is more important to know what they are not. That these items are not weapons, explosives or incendiaries.

In regards to "knowing", the truth is that it most cases, TSO's are simply assuming an item is what it appears to be.

Originally Posted by RatherBeOnATrain (Post 16619040)

Another false dichotomy...

Roughly 30+ times a year, I end up flying with at least one checked bag in the cargo hold below my seat. Also in the cargo hold is unscreened luggage, from shippers who are *not* on the plane.

What sense does it make to screen my checked luggage when there is unscreened cargo in the same hold?

Your employer has had plenty of time to address this question, as the Pan-Am 103 bombing happened back in 1988.

Originally Posted by mpattdu (Post 16619171)

What's silly is comparing someone who doesn't want to have their luggage screened AT ALL, with someone who submits to having credentials examined, luggage screened, shoes off, FB out, and laptop out. When they either opt out or trigger an alert they submit to a patdown and tell you that the unexplained metal object under their shirt is a nipple ring. But they don't get to fly because they can't take it out and won't show it to you. That's silly. But maybe I'm naive and just don't know about the top secret bomb-disguised-as-body-piercing-devices that the terrorists are working on these days.

Originally Posted by Fredd (Post 16619357)

As you probably know, the idea of blowing up planes in flight, whether for ideology or money, goes back a ways.

For the young 'uns... When I was young in the 50s, people sold flight insurance in airport kiosks. A few people put 1+ 1 together in the interests of profit at least as far back as 1955.

Arthur Hailey based Airport, published in 1968, on this very type of situation, although in fairness his fictional bomber carried his bomb aboard with him.

And of course the bombing of Air India #182 after it departed YVR occurred in 1985. It's easy to forget that another bomb in the cargo hold exploded at NRT, killing two baggage handlers, while it was in the process of being transferred to Air India Flight 301.

Originally Posted by tanja (Post 16619541)

With other words TSA doesnt like and approve of any kind of body piercings.

You have to take them out to travel.

You can show the so they can "see" through clothes. Dont know how they do that.

You cant have visual inspection at all since they dont want to see you that much.

Then there is you can get groped through your bra and/or undies til the TSO can feel what it is. That cant really hurt. And at least very invasive.

Guess the next step will be no ear piercings and jewerly.

No clothes with metallic in them.

No carry on.

When will it end.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 16619356)

Unless they are exempt from screening for some reason you say:

Sorry, for your bag to travel it must be inspected. It is your choice for your bag to go or not. What is your decision?